下颈椎过伸性压缩损伤:我们真的了解这种损伤的细微差别吗?
Advanced compressive extension injuries of the subaxial cervical spine: do we really understand the nuances of this injury?
机构信息
Department of Orthopaedics and Sport Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, 325 Ninth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104, USA.
Department of Orthopaedics and Sport Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, 325 Ninth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104, USA.
出版信息
Spine J. 2021 Jul;21(7):1159-1167. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.02.010. Epub 2021 Feb 19.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT
The Allen and Ferguson classification of cervical spine injuries is widely used. They described compressive Extension (CE) injuries as having five progressive stages. Stage 4(CE4) and 5(CE5) have been described as having a posterior vertebral arch fracture involving two motion segments accompanied by displacement (dislocation) of the vertebral body at a single level. However, in their original work, CE4 was described only as a hypothetical stage, while CE5 was found in only three patients. Beyond this, little is understood about these injuries.
PURPOSE
To identify characteristics of compression extension injuries with vertebral body displacement (CE4 and CE5) from a series of surgically treated subaxial cervical spine fractures. A secondary aim was to identify specific characteristics that may guide treatment or affect prognosis.
DESIGN
Retrospective case series.
PATIENT SAMPLE
Twenty-four patients who underwent surgical stabilization of CE4 and CE5 cervical spine fracture-dislocations in non-ankylosed spines over a 14-year period.
OUTCOME MEASURES
Radiographic categorization of CE injury type, treatment rendered, postoperative spinal alignment, presence of nonunion, loss of fixation, hardware-related and neurologic complications.
METHODS
After IRB approval, patients with CE injuries were identified through billing data and radiology records at a level I trauma center between January 2005 and September 2018. Demographic data, ISS, ASA, motor score, and complications during the hospitalization were collected from the patient's EMR. CT scans were reviewed to assess fracture pattern, level, and location of the vertebral arch fracture, vertebral body displacement, spinal canal diameter and method of surgical stabilization. Injuries were classified according to the classification of Allen and Ferguson, and the AO subaxial cervical spine classification.
RESULTS
Of 221 patients identified with CE mechanism, 24 had CE4 or CE5 injuries. High-energy mechanism occurred in 92% of the patients, with motor vehicle accidents being the most common. The average ASIA motor score was 80 preoperatively and 84 at average 398 days follow-up. All CE4 and CE5 injuries occurred at C6-C7 or C7-T1. Average anterolisthesis was 6.26 mm (SD ± 2.3 mm) for CE4 and 16.8 mm (SD ± 1.8 mm) for CE5. Average spinal canal diameter at the level of dislocation was 20 mm (SD ± 0.4 mm) for CE4 and 30.5 mm (range 29.6 - 31.4 mm) for CE5. The surgical approach was anterior in 5 patients, posterior in 12 patients, and combined in 7 patients. Four patients had single-evel fixation, all of whom had CE4 injuries, and 20 patients had fixation across two or more levels. Thirty percent of patients had complications, none of which included postoperative spinal malalignment, nonunion or hardware-related complications, or worsening of neurologic exam. Three deaths occurred in the postoperative hospitalization period (7 to 15 days).
CONCLUSION
CE4 and CE5 injuries represented 10% and 1% of all CE injuries in our series respectively occurring only at the C6-C7 and C7-T1 levels. Though by original description these are two-level injuries, in patients with milder posterior element injury, single level stabilization was used successfully. We have therefore proposed designating CE4 into less severe CE4a and more severe CE4b injuries. Because this fracture pattern typically results in widening of the spinal canal as the anterior displacement of the vertebral body occurs independent of the fractured posterior elements, spinal cord injuries are neither as severe nor as common as in fracture-dislocation from other mechanisms.
背景语境
Allen 和 Ferguson 的颈椎损伤分类被广泛应用。他们将压缩性伸展(CE)损伤描述为具有五个渐进阶段。第四阶段(CE4)和第五阶段(CE5)被描述为涉及两个运动节段的后椎弓骨折,伴有单一水平的椎体移位(脱位)。然而,在他们的原始工作中,CE4 仅被描述为假设阶段,而 CE5 仅在三名患者中发现。除此之外,人们对这些损伤知之甚少。
目的
从一系列手术治疗的下颈椎骨折中确定具有椎体移位的压缩性伸展损伤(CE4 和 CE5)的特征。次要目的是确定可能指导治疗或影响预后的特定特征。
设计
回顾性病例系列。
患者样本
在 14 年期间,在非强直脊柱中对 24 例 CE4 和 CE5 颈椎骨折脱位患者进行手术稳定治疗。
结果测量
CE 损伤类型的放射学分类、治疗方法、术后脊柱排列、非愈合、固定丢失、与硬件相关和神经并发症的存在。
方法
在获得机构审查委员会批准后,通过一级创伤中心的计费数据和放射学记录确定了具有 CE 损伤的患者,在 2005 年 1 月至 2018 年 9 月期间。从患者的 EMR 中收集人口统计学数据、ISS、ASA、运动评分和住院期间的并发症。对 CT 扫描进行评估以评估骨折模式、水平和位置、椎弓骨折、椎体移位、椎管直径和手术稳定方法。根据 Allen 和 Ferguson 分类和 AO 下颈椎分类对损伤进行分类。
结论
在我们的系列中,CE4 和 CE5 损伤分别占所有 CE 损伤的 10%和 1%,仅发生在 C6-C7 和 C7-T1 水平。尽管根据原始描述,这些是两水平损伤,但在椎弓根后元素损伤较轻的患者中,成功使用了单水平稳定。因此,我们提出将 CE4 分为更严重的 CE4a 和更严重的 CE4b 损伤。由于这种骨折模式通常会导致椎管变宽,因为椎体的前向移位与骨折后的元素无关,因此与其他机制引起的骨折脱位相比,脊髓损伤既不严重也不常见。